Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[Archisian]

Asking people to be considerate in their actions is something we already do in all aspects of life. Why should conceding be any different?

1. You're asking for more than consideration. You're asking people to inconvenience themselves in order to accommodate your extreme, irrational aversion, which is an unreasonable request. You are the only participant in this discussion, so far, who is "devastated" by conceding. That in itself is odd. Better if you come to grips with the fact that sometimes people concede, and try not to be so "devastated" when it happens.

2. Your "artist" analogy doesn't withstand the cold light of day. You're not an artist. You're a competitor. The objective is to win. Not to create something. When your opponent concedes, you win. Mission accomplished.

3. You're the one pushing this fake-objective agenda that conceding is more burdensome than enduring the boredom of continuing to play in an already decided game. I think the onus is on you to prove it. It's not up to anyone else to disprove it.

4. Let's say most people never concede, but don't mind if their opponent concedes. I've played enough games every day for enough years, that that would be my guess. Then what? I have to be like most people? I'm here to play and enjoy myself. I can't do that if I have to make meaningless moves in a game I've already lost. Conceding is a universally acceptable, reasonable option, as evidenced by the fact that BGA (and pretty much every other game site) provides this option. If conceding was unfair, unethical, unduly burdensome, or "discriminatory," game sites wouldn't provide the option to do so. They're trying to accommodate their customers. Not scare them away.

5. What's your point? BGA should eliminate the option to concede? I don't understand what complaining in a forum about "oh the devastation of conceding" is supposed to accomplish.

6. Not everything is "discrimination". Sometimes discrimination is called for. Dogs are not allowed in restaurants because they have bad manners, they're unclean, and they would infringe on people's right to enjoy their meal. Some people can't stand the sound of gum being chewed. Should everyone stop chewing gum to keep from "discriminating" against them? By your logic, no one should ever do anything.

7. Conceding is a part of life. It happens all the time, including in Chess tournaments, and all manner of situations outside of board gaming. Deal with it. Accept your victory with dignity. Not with a temper tantrum because you weren't allowed to win the "right" way. This is like winning a boxing match by TKO and complaining because you were denied the satisfaction of seriously injuring your opponent.

Completely agree with every point you made. I think the whole argument that a random game of Splendor on an online platform is some kind of "art" being made. I find it so ridiculous that I chuckle at the thought of it.

I saw a post on a StarCraft forum that hated when people GGed and left because the original poster didn't get to destroy every building that their opponent had. They even argued that it was the loser's "duty" to give them that euphoric feeling of the total destruction of their opponent, even though the game was already lost 15 minutes before.

I think all these fluff arguments about "art" and stats is really masking the real reason: they want the euphoric feeling of winning as big as possible.

[Archisian]

41 pages of exhaustive talk about conceding?
There are novels shorter than this absurd thread... this is bananazzz!!!!
Just accept that people can concede in games of 2, after 50% progression, and move on!
Why should I care about your precious stats in a game that's already 100% lost for me, when I can politely give you the win and go outside and jog? And why would I want to stay close to you in a lost game, just to feed your precious ego, when I can get far away from you, doing other stuff?
I rarely look at stats anyway; when I see a player concedes on me, I take it as a compliment, not as an insult; I don't need stats to know how good I am; why do you anti-conceders, feel like you need them, when you win?

Now let's take this thread to 1000 pages of arguments and counter-arguments, because throwing in the towel in online games with strangers is one of the world's biggest issues right now...

Because there are people who DO want to force you to continue to a lost game to satisfy themselves and they want to impose this view on EVERYONE on the site. That's why it's lasted so long, lol.

[tbhp]

I think all these fluff arguments about "art" and stats is really masking the real reason: they want the euphoric feeling of winning as big as possible.

That doesn't make much sense seeing as some games are about construction, not destruction.

Also, in terms of points, your opponent might get closer to you in points once the game is finished normally, than if you were to end it prematurely, so that doesn't make sense either.

Clearly that was a reason for the person who brought this up to you, but that can't be applicable to all situations. People who hate conceding hate it also when they are the ones in the losing situation. It's a general desire to see the game end properly, even though it is true that you'll probably have a higher attachment to the games you won, than the ones you lost. The more you appreciate about a game, the more affected you are gonna be if it gets conceded on you (same as an artist would be more affected if they lose a masterpiece, than if they lose a work that was nothing special).

[FrankJones]

I don't mean to repeat myself, but I do.

NOBODY is "forced" to do anything. Want to stop playing? NO ONE CAN MAKE YOU OR FORCE YOU TO CONTINUE.


In a 3+ player game, It is NOT possible to "concede". Why are the pro-conceders not upset about this ???????

Why in a 3+ player game are players "FORCED" to keep playing ?

??????????

[Archisian]

That doesn't make much sense seeing as some games are about construction, not destruction.

I don't understand your point. Why does it matter if a game is based on construction or destruction? The object of the game is to win. The game is not making any social analysis, philosophy, commentary, or anything deep. The only exception to this would be video games, and only then just some of them. But board games aren't doing any of that. What is I laying down a Blue-gray Gnatcatcher on T1 in Wingspan say about anything other than "I laid this card down to hopefully bring me a victory in this game"?

Just because some things are constructed, doesn't mean that it's meaningful in an abstract sense. Look at the endless Soviet style apartment buildings that are built in the exact same way with the exact same colors and proportions. Do we consider those buildings on the same level as a Frank Lloyd Wright building? Of course we don't as those buildings were built for efficiency. Games are the same way, particularly for board games. The goal is to be as efficient as possible with getting the max benefit to win. I'd be shocked if there was a board game out there where the goal was NOT to maximize efficiency in order to win.

Also, in terms of points, your opponent might get closer to you in points once the game is finished normally, than if you were to end it prematurely, so that doesn't make sense either.

Why would I want my opponent to get closer to me in score if I'm winning already? Why would I care? The goal is to win. I could care less how well my opponent does. As long as I see a W by my username, that's all that matters in the end. I don't want to root for my opponent to make the score closer and (potentially) defeat me. That would be really bizarre.

[Archisian]

I don't mean to repeat myself, but I do.

NOBODY is "forced" to do anything. Want to stop playing? NO ONE CAN MAKE YOU OR FORCE YOU TO CONTINUE.


In a 3+ player game, It is NOT possible to "concede". Why are the pro-conceders not upset about this ???????

Why in a 3+ player game are players "FORCED" to keep playing ?

??????????

Let's flip this around: if an opponent concedes, do you feel you are "forced" to take a win you didn't want?

I also stated previously that I think conceding in 3+ player games should be allowed as well.

[tbhp]

I don't understand your point. Why does it matter if a game is based on construction or destruction? The object of the game is to win. The game is not making any social analysis, philosophy, commentary, or anything deep.

That's your opinion. To some a game is an art object, so throwing away the game before it's completed is like if an artist got their work taken away from them before they could complete it. They would probably be quite affected by it.

But you dismissed the whole artistic angle in your previous post. If you don't accept the things that people tell you, obviously you aren't gonna understand their perspective.

Why would I want my opponent to get closer to me in score if I'm winning already? Why would I care?

Again, that's your opinion. For me, I care about finishing the game properly. That's my highest priority, before thinking about how whether I'm gonna win and by how much.

[Archisian]

That's your opinion. To some a game is an art object, so throwing away the game before it's completed is like if an artist got their work taken away from them before they could complete it. They would probably be quite affected by it.

But you dismissed the whole artistic angle in your previous post. If you don't accept the things that people are telling you, obviously you aren't gonna understand their perspective.

Again, that's your opinion. For me, I care about the finishing the game properly. That's my highest priority, before thinking about how whether I'm gonna win and by how much.

Why should your opinion matter more than mine when it comes to establishing rules in board games?

[tbhp]

That's your opinion. To some a game is an art object, so throwing away the game before it's completed is like if an artist got their work taken away from them before they could complete it. They would probably be quite affected by it.

But you dismissed the whole artistic angle in your previous post. If you don't accept the things that people are telling you, obviously you aren't gonna understand their perspective.

Again, that's your opinion. For me, I care about the finishing the game properly. That's my highest priority, before thinking about how whether I'm gonna win and by how much.

Why should your opinion matter more than mine when it comes to establishing rules in board games?

That's a different subject. You should read the previous pages (and the other recent thread on the subject) to see all the discussions about who is being hurt more between the conceding and no-conceding alternatives. My stance on that is that no one is affected that much by not being able to concede, so the higher priority should be to think of those who are hurt by conceding.

[Archisian]

That's your opinion. To some a game is an art object, so throwing away the game before it's completed is like if an artist got their work taken away from them before they could complete it. They would probably be quite affected by it.

But you dismissed the whole artistic angle in your previous post. If you don't accept the things that people are telling you, obviously you aren't gonna understand their perspective.

Again, that's your opinion. For me, I care about the finishing the game properly. That's my highest priority, before thinking about how whether I'm gonna win and by how much.

Why should your opinion matter more than mine when it comes to establishing rules in board games?

That's a different subject. You should read the previous pages (and the other recent thread on the subject) to see all the discussions about who is being hurt more between the conceding and no-conceding alternatives. My stance on that is that no one is affected that much by not being able to concede, so the higher priority should be to think of those who are hurt by conceding.

Again, your opinion. I think I'm being harmed by continuing to play a lost game I don't want to play anymore. In fact, I think I'm being harmed more because at least the winner has the satisfaction of winning. I receive literally no benefit from playing out an already lost game.

So, if we are presenting our cases to some arbiter of the rules, how do we determine that my harm is less significant than yours?

All I'm seeing is just opinion and nothing of actual substance. Fine if it's your opinion and it's just talking. However, your desire to ban conceding is imposing your view onto me. This is different than simply allowing conceding. You need really good reasons to have a ban.